Juanita
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2013
- Messages
- 3,981
- Reaction score
- 863
- Location
- now? COLORADO
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Many men who became circumcised as adults report that sex is less pleasurable than before.
Another good reason to have it done when he is a baby, if that is even true...
I believe it was "restricted", not "outlawed".
I have a better question. Why is the brit milah okay just because it's an "ancient religious tradition"? Imagine a world where circumcision was rarely performed, and only when medically necessary. Now imagine, in the year 2014, a religious group comes along and with the advent of the brit milah, rabbi sucking blood from the genitals and the whole shabang, claiming it was part of their covenant with God. Do you really think most countries would say, "Yep, that makes sense!", and allow it?
How much do we allow in the name of religion? I realize that the U.S. has a fetish for cut cocks which prevents most of its people from seeing this issue clearly, but if you can, try to put it aside. Why does this religious practice get the ok, but if a non-Jew did something like this to a baby they would probably end up in jail for sex crimes and assault?
Why is it ok for one group to do this to a baby's genitals, but not another? Why, in general, do parents get to opt for this elective, unnecessary procedure when the child is at an age where they can't vocalize dissent?
A washed penis is a clean penis and less likely to give an infection.
What does this have to do with Israel?
I'm not a statist. This is about medical ethics.
Look, dude, you can equate it to all sorts of crazy crap and say "what if" but details matter to me and they always have. It's a minor thing, like having a baby's ears pierced (which is quite common and cultural where I live). All this, it's the same as having all your teeth and toes pulled out is getting ridiculous. I get that you cannot fathom why anyone has any religious beliefs and that it offends you that people have them. That does not make you right. Your religion may be more about appearances because you're fine with children suffering in the name of something as shallow as "looking better". Your issue here is not concern for the kids, but for sticking it to religion.
I took it as being against Jewish tradition, but look at it as a medical procedure that most Americans, Jewish or not, have done on their male children...
You are so obtuse it's impossible to really have this debate with you. First of all, children have a right to refuse dental procedures. Second, if they consent, they can have their mouth numbed or be put under, unlike newborn babies. Third, what business does Israel have telling Europe what to do when its laws have zero bearing on Israel's laws? Fourth, Council of Europe is a toothless organization, an as the article said, they encourage public debate - kind of like the one we're having right now. And lastly, if you are against female circumcision it's a worth cause but apparently if you're against male circumcision you're either an anti-semite, a statist, or just value the unclean.
The UN does not support universal circumcision. More than a majority of the world's men are uncircumcised and live just fine. Let's face the facts, that aside from religious koolaid and certain countries like America where cut cocks are fetishized as "normal", this practice is considered deviant.
I would question ANY religious belief that involves forcing an unnecessary medical procedure on an infant. Sorry that critical thinking skills offend you! (No wait, I'm not.)
I happen to be against the brit milah by proxy of being against elective circumcision in general. We would not do this to girls so we should not be doing it to boys either. Bodily sovereignty reigns supreme. I'm only in favor of parents being able to override that if there's a genuine medical need.
I happen to be against the brit milah by proxy of being against elective circumcision in general. We would not do this to girls so we should not be doing it to boys either. Bodily sovereignty reigns supreme. I'm only in favor of parents being able to override that if there's a genuine medical need.
You're too emotionally invested in your contempt for religion you cannot look at yourself, and your own hypocrisies objectively. To compare male circumcision to female is just sad. Female genital mutilation is done so that women are less likely to feel anything sexual (hence cutting away the clitorus). To compare the two cheapens what FGM really is about. Children cannot give consent or withhold it. A child may not want his cavities drilled but we don't leave things like that up to children. In the US, parents still get to make decisions regarding their children's upbringing. Finally, where do you get the idea that newborns cannot be numbed? I know for a fact they can and are.
So, what state centers do you think children should be taken to to be raised correctly and without the influences of their stupid parents? Surely circumcision can't be the only thing that offends you. Some parent's may (are you sitting down for this?) take their children to church.
Fine, but it really isn't any of your business what other people do, and I don't think that circumcision can be equated with female genital mutilation..
I took it as being against Jewish tradition, but look at it as a medical procedure that most Americans, Jewish or not, have done on their male children...
You can try to defame me with this ill-thought-out logic, but all it does it degrade the veracity of your original arguments.
You'd be hard pressed to find another medical procedure that we perform on new borns without their consent that I would be against, along the lines of the same criteria that I am against circumcision.
Keep grasping though. :shrug:
I'm serious. What other decisions do you want removed from parents?
The practice is declining as old myths about cleanliness, STDs, etc., have been debunked. This is a Newsweek article which may be of interest: Circumcision Rate in the U.S. Declines as Attitudes Change (1) - Businessweek
Basically, about 55% of male babies are circumcised now, compared with 65% a couple of decades ago.
Personally, I think circumcision is a decision the government should have no part in; that said, I did not allow my own son to be circumcised. Circumcision was not part of his father's family customs, and I was grateful because I do view it as a genital mutilation on an infant, a process that sometimes goes horribly and irrevocably awry. Any unnecessary cutting procedure on a newborn has risks, and I personally would prefer children are allowed to make their own decision once they are grown. Once the decision has been made for them, it cannot be undone.
Yes, I also abhor piercings on infants, although a pinhole in the earlobe will heal, but a foreskin is not going to grow back.
That said, it is also a religious custom, and as such it should never be outlawed by any government because it would infringe on the religious freedoms of its populace. It does seem odd to me, however, that God would carefully fashion a perfectly nice foreskin, then command his followers to lop it off at birth! :lol: People do seem to become rabid on both sides whenever this issues comes up... no pun intended, lol!
You seem a little less biased, so I'll ask you.
If circumcision is not okay, and is indeed barbaric, then why does religion get a free pass?
Normally I'd be the first to respect people's traditions, but why do they get to trump medical ethics in this case? If it's wrong to cut genitalia then why is it right if religious people do it?
Can someone please answer this without foaming at the mouth about how I hate religion? Cause I don't.
Religion gets a free pass because this country was founded on freedom of religion, and I personally wouldn't have it any other way. Government needs to butt out of religious traditions, unless human sacrifice is involved.
Do I personally find certain religious traditions offputting? Sure. But it's really none of my business. I am not a religious person, but I would start quaking in my boots if the liberty of those who are religious came under official government attack... for any reason. I'm sure you can understand why.
I completely agree, but we already restrict freedom of religion in some ways. Some events require permits, especially where they put public safety at risk. Certain ceremonial objects, like knives and daggers, can't be worn in government buildings even though those religions say that the adherent must wear them at all times. Many followers come from countries with very strict religious rules about relations between men and women, how women should be treated, etc... i.e. Shariah law, but we don't let men imprison women in their homes.
I hate government statism, I really do... but this is about medical ethics. I don't feel it would be a slippery slope for the government to re-examine the question of circumcision for everyone, if the secular data points to it being unnecessary. Statistically, more boys get botched circumcisions than uncircumcised men get HIV.
Simply touting freedom of religion is not enough to convince me. I'm sorry. I need to hear a better argument.
I'm not particularly bothered by it, but I would have every right to be, were I so inclined. Why should parents be able to cut off pieces of their child for no other reason but to appease their god? Would you support this in every situation, or just when it involves you?It doesn't bother you that you were mutilated without your consent?
Perhaps the best way to stop this barbaric practice is by instigating legal action. When doctors understand they can be sued for it then and only then will it stop.
So shall we continue to allow the brutal practice of twisting kids teeth over a period of years and maybe even extracting them (I had four permanent teeth pulled by my quack orthodontist) in the name of asthetics? I'm curious what other things you don't think parents should get to decide for children your "free society". What if they teach *gasp* religion? Probably better to remove kids from their parents and let folks like you raise them correctly, amiright?
There is a bunch of subtle sneaky passive-aggressive suckers in this thread and I'm only on the 4th post. It's kind of fun. :2dancing: I really like it here. I think I will continue to read the rest of the comments. This is probably going to prove to be very entertaining.
Another good reason to have it done when he is a baby
if that is even true
Just so I get this straight... There is no law making circumcision obligatory, however, this court believes it has the power to fine people who don't circumcise their children? Where on earth did the court get the opinion it had the power to hand out fines then?
The practice is declining as old myths about cleanliness, STDs, etc., have been debunked. This is a Newsweek article which may be of interest: Circumcision Rate in the U.S. Declines as Attitudes Change (1) - Businessweek
Basically, about 55% of male babies are circumcised now, compared with 65% a couple of decades ago.
.
Personally, I think circumcision is a decision the government should have no part in; that said, I did not allow my own son to be circumcised. Circumcision was not part of his father's family customs, and I was grateful because I do view it as a genital mutilation on an infant, a process that sometimes goes horribly and irrevocably awry. Any unnecessary cutting procedure on a newborn has risks, and I personally would prefer children are allowed to make their own decision once they are grown. Once the decision has been made for them, it cannot be undone.
Yes, I also abhor piercings on infants, although a pinhole in the earlobe will heal, but a foreskin is not going to grow back.
That said, it is also a religious custom, and as such it should never be outlawed by any government because it would infringe on the religious freedoms of its populace. It does seem odd to me, however, that God would carefully fashion a perfectly nice foreskin, then command his followers to lop it off at birth! :lol: People do seem to become rabid on both sides whenever this issues comes up... no pun intended, lol!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?